But on another topic (now that we have a Dane with us) how is Helle doing as prime minister?

Right now badly PR-wise, the government go from bad media case after another. Some blame SF/SPP because they didn't want to let their congestion charge go. But I blame the Social Liberal because they had been such assholes in the negotiation, and didn't want to let SPP get even any of their symbolic policies through*, so they had to fight for the few they got, even when they turned into disasters.

*Reminding us all, that the reason DPP has had such excellent results the last decade, was just as much because people was really tired of the Social Liberals arrogance and obnoxious smugness as anything to do with immigrants, and I write this as someone agreeing with the Social Liberals on most policies, imagine how people disagreeing with them feel!

Considering that they get many of the costs of EU membership without all of the benefits through EFTA, EEA, and other trade agreements, and provided that the EU survives it's current crisis in good form, I do believe that eventually both countries will join. I also believe that a successfully concluded negotiation regarding fisheries may be instrumental in Iceland joining sooner rather than later.

Considering that they get many of the costs of EU membership without all of the benefits through EFTA, EEA, and other trade agreements, and provided that the EU survives it's current crisis in good form, I do believe that eventually both countries will join. I also believe that a successfully concluded negotiation regarding fisheries may be instrumental in Iceland joining sooner rather than later.

Eh...they're nowhere near the costs. They pay a couple of hundred million euros to the EU per year, whereas Sweden pays around 3 billion euros per year.

And, of course, they retain the possibility to keep their sovereignty.

I was thinking along the lines of having to adopt or follw certain laws or regulations. Some people could construe that as a cost.

And since they do go along with most decisions, wouldn't it be better to be on the inside where they can actually help shape the EU? And theoretically I suppose if they really got fed up, who could stop them from leaving? Technically Greenland withdrew from the EC, after all (I understand the EC is different from the EU that it became, but I think when we are talking about a country leaving the EU that has yet to join we move far into the theoretical).

I was thinking along the lines of having to adopt or follow certain laws or regulations. Some people could construe that as a cost. And since they do go along with most decisions, wouldn't it be better to be on the inside where they can actually help shape the EU?

And theoretically I suppose if they really got fed up, who could stop them from leaving? Technically Greenland withdrew from the EC, after all (I understand the EC is different from the EU that it became, but I think when we are talking about a country leaving the EU that has yet to join we move far into the theoretical).

1. They also withdrew de facto. EU decisions don't apply to Greenland. All countries are free to leave as they are sovereign nations.

2. The question is: How much can small countries actually influence the EU?

I was thinking along the lines of having to adopt or follw certain laws or regulations. Some people could construe that as a cost.

And since they do go along with most decisions, wouldn't it be better to be on the inside where they can actually help shape the EU? And theoretically I suppose if they really got fed up, who could stop them from leaving? Technically Greenland withdrew from the EC, after all (I understand the EC is different from the EU that it became, but I think when we are talking about a country leaving the EU that has yet to join we move far into the theoretical).

Sure, that can be a cost. Then again they do have greater freedom to negotiate the terms than a country subjected to the EU treaties.

There are two problems with this idea of shaping the EU. The first is that a tiny country like Norway can do this to any great extent. The second is that it conflates the Norwegian people with their EU representatives.

It might allow Norwegian government officials to influence the EU, but since it removes pretty much all democratic accountability, it effectively reduces the influence of the Norwegian people to a bare minimum.

That's the same problem with your other point as well. The government will never want to leave the EU and the people won't be able to make them. Besides, leaving the EU has a lot more negative connotations than breaking up some treaty or renegotiating some terms.

The Swedish Minister of Defence, Sten Tolgfors, resigned today following a government scandal which broke early in March where the Swedish DoD in secret helped Saudi Arabia build a weapons factory. Weapons produced in the factory has proved to have been sold to and used by oppressing regimes against protestors in their country.

Tolgfors has during the investigation of the affair been caught lying and conceiling information, causing several opposition politicians to call for him to resign.

The Swedish Minister of Defence, Sten Tolgfors, resigned today following a government scandal which broke early in March where the Swedish DoD in secret helped Saudi Arabia build a weapons factory. Weapons produced in the factory has proved to have been sold to and used by oppressing regimes against protestors in their country.

Tolgfors has during the investigation of the affair been caught lying and conceiling information, causing several opposition politicians to call for him to resign.

Any long term effect in voters perception of the government IYO? (bump on the road or serious business...)

The Swedish Minister of Defence, Sten Tolgfors, resigned today following a government scandal which broke early in March where the Swedish DoD in secret helped Saudi Arabia build a weapons factory. Weapons produced in the factory has proved to have been sold to and used by oppressing regimes against protestors in their country.

Tolgfors has during the investigation of the affair been caught lying and conceiling information, causing several opposition politicians to call for him to resign.

Any long term effect in voters perception of the government IYO? (bump on the road or serious business...)

I don't think it's a big thing for the government. It kind of feeds the narrative of the government being corrupt though.

Since the current government took over in 2006 there has been 6 resignations that can be seen as embarassing for the government.

The trade minister and culture minister both had to resign within a week of getting their positions when it turned out they had not paid the licence fee for their TVs.

The former defence minister resigned in protest due to the cuts of defence spending.

The labour market minister resigned when it came out he had bought sexual services.

The minister for social insurance systems resigned due to heavily criticized reforms of those systems.

And, now this defence minister due to the Saudi thing. That is probably more than the government before. Then again, media scrutiny is a lot higher nowadays than it used to be - politicians used to be able to get away with a lot more.

I'm not sure actually, the Persson cabinet had quite a few as well. Most notably Leila Freivald who resigned twice, once as Minister of Justice, once as Foreign Minister, both times due to scandals.

Haha, yes. And Jan O Karlsson, of course. But beyond that? There is Ylva Johansson and Erik Åsbrink but that is quite a while ago. And Björn Rosengren but I can't even recall if he actually ever had to resign. By then we're up to a decade in time span.